<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gifted Special Needs&#187; Maryland</title>
	<atom:link href="http://giftedspecialneeds.com/?cat=40&#038;feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://giftedspecialneeds.com</link>
	<description>The World of the Twice Exceptional</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:01:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.40</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Labeling kids</title>
		<link>http://giftedspecialneeds.com/?p=81</link>
		<comments>http://giftedspecialneeds.com/?p=81#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JMD]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gifted and Talented]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Testing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.giftedspecialneeds.com/?p=81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Way back in December a Washington Post article â€œMontgomery Erasing Gifted Labelâ€ caught my eye and Iâ€™ve been planning to write about that.Â  (â€œMontgomery Erasing Gifted Label: Implications Concern Some School Parentsâ€ by Daniel de Vise, December 16, 2008) Of course this is old news by now, and covered widely by various blogs, including, naturally, [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="drop_cap">W</span>ay back in December a Washington Post article â€œMontgomery Erasing Gifted Labelâ€ caught my eye and Iâ€™ve been planning to write about that.Â  (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121503114.html" target="_blank">â€œMontgomery Erasing Gifted Label: Implications Concern Some School Parentsâ€ by Daniel de Vise, December 16, 2008</a>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course this is old news by now, and covered widely by various blogs, including, naturally, the <a href="http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/">Gifted Exchange</a> blog, which asks <a href="http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2009/01/does-gifted-label-matter.html" target="_blank">â€œDoes the â€˜Giftedâ€™ label matter?â€</a> .</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I like <span class="fn">Laura Vanderkamâ€™s </span>point that although â€œwhat matters is that kids&#8217; needs are met,â€ yet â€œwhen districts do label kids, then that at least creates pressure to do something for those with the label.â€</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thatâ€™s certainly true on the other side of the scale, and as I and many of my friends with kids on IEPs know, even the label doesnâ€™t guarantee that kidsâ€™ needs are met.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Washington Post article reports that</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">â€œOfficials plan to abandon a decades-old policy that sorts second-grade students, like Dr. Seuss&#8217;s Sneetches, into those who are gifted (the Star-Belly sort) and those who are not. [â€¦] Montgomery education leaders have decided that the practice is arbitrary and unfair.â€</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><strong>Donâ€™t even get me started on fair&#8230; </strong></em>As long as the quality of education a child gets depends on the income of that childâ€™s parents and their ability to buy a house in the best school district, there is no â€œfairâ€ in American education.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Gifted programs at least promise to give a chance for better education to smart kids from families who are not rich. Whether they deliver on that or not, thatâ€™s another matter.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another reason given for scrapping the label is that</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">â€œthe approach [sorting kids into gifted and not gifted] slights the rest of the students who are not so labeled. White and Asian American students are twice as likely as blacks and Hispanics to be identified as gifted.â€</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly, the officials do admit that â€œthe practice is arbitraryâ€ and their â€œformula for giftedness is flawed.â€ Well, then they should look at their identification and eligibility methods and revamp them!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Oh and apparently â€œA school that tells some students they have gifts risks dashing the academic dreams of everyone else.â€</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What about the gifted kidsâ€™ academic dreams? Why arenâ€™t they allowed to dream of being challenged?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A lot of these kids are very excited to go to Kindergarten because they love learning and think itâ€™s going to be so much fun learning new stuff all the time.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But then, even if they know how to add fractions, they get stuck recognizing patterns for a year or two (you know â€“ circle, circle, square, circle, â€¦ what goes next?) And even if they can read chapter books, they are lucky if their â€œadvanced reading groupâ€ reads four- to six-page books and when they skip forward while their classmates slowly decode the words on the page, the teacher frowns upon them.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No wonder a lot of these kids have pretty much lost their enthusiasm for learning by third grade and think the school is boring.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, no need to worry &#8212; apparently â€œlosing the label won&#8217;t change gifted instruction, because it is open to all students.â€</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I donâ€™t get it. If gifted instruction is open to all students, then how does it differ from regular instruction? Gifted education is not <em>what </em>the kids are being taught, it is <em>how </em>they are being taught.</p>
<p>The thing about scrapping the label is that even though â€œeducators have become more nimble in deciding who needs accelerated instructionâ€ it doesnâ€™t mean they are actually going to provide accelerated instruction. The fact that â€œteachers codify children&#8217;s math and reading levels with frequency and precision unknown in previous decadesâ€ doesnâ€™t really mean anything.</p>
<p>Sure, at my sonâ€™s school they can â€œcodifyâ€ that his math and reading levels are above grade. So what? Thereâ€™s no gifted mandate in Massachusetts, so they donâ€™t have to do anything about it. The only thing they care about is that he meets the curriculum requirements, which he does.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that â€œPrincipals and teachers say they don&#8217;t missâ€ the gifted identification program. Itâ€™s probably easier that way. No more fighting with parents over whether little Johny III will get into the program or not. No more proving to parents that they differentiate.</p>
<p>And as far as the gifted label setting â€œup a kind of have and have-not atmosphere at your schoolâ€â€¦ Looking at it from the SPED point of view, are then the kids with IEPs â€œdonâ€™t-even-dream-about-it-have-notsâ€?Or would the school like to scrap that label too to not make the SPED kids feel bad?</p>
<p>Incidentally, just as some parents fight to get their child labeled â€œgifted,â€ some parents donâ€™t want their child labeled â€œSPEDâ€ and will not request or even deny testing. As a result a child is not getting the services she or he needsâ€¦ But thatâ€™s a topic for an entirely different post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://giftedspecialneeds.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=81</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
